>It is invalid to deduce the negation, that is, "if you repent and are not
>baptized, then your sins will not be forgiven." That simply does not
>follow logically. Technically, "If A and B, then C" means simply on the
>condition of both A and B, then C follows. It does not imply "if not (A
>and B), then not C." This is the negation. One of the ways the negation
>exists here is, "if A and not B, then not C." This is the form of Acts
>2:38. We do not have to resort to fancy exegetical gymnastics in order
>to show baptism is not required. It is not, because logic forbids it
>here. Baptism would be required only if such a statement as "if a man
>is not baptized, then his sins are not forgiven" can be found.
>Fortunately, none can be found in Scripture.
>
>On the contrary, the negation for belief and/or repentance is found in
>numerous passages (Jn 8:24, Mk 16:16b).

I will not respond directly to your reply on Acts 2:38 above since this is a
Greek mailing list. We can do that privately if you wish. However, let us
look at the grammar of Mark 16:16. "He that believeth" and "is baptized"
are aorist participles. The verb is "shall be saved." Is it not true that
the action of the aorist partciples *MUST* take place before the action of
the verb? That is, isn't it grammatically true that the action of *both*
"believeth" and "is baptized" must take place *before* "shall be saved"? If
so, then baptism is absolutley necessary before a person can be saved.